• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Question.

You can't keep screwing the economy or suspend the people in fear while the population is armed.

That is what gun control and ACA are about.

Western South Dakota ranchers aren't too thrilled with their GOP-TEAts right now..
Dead herds in the Blizzard, no way to remove the carcasses;
now Sen. Thune wants that part of the govt. to reopen..
Just like with Hurricane Sandy versus the natural disasters in RED areas.
 
Western South Dakota ranchers aren't too thrilled with their GOP-TEAts right now..
Dead herds in the Blizzard, no way to remove the carcasses;
now Sen. Thune wants that part of the govt. to reopen..
Just like with Hurricane Sandy versus the natural disasters in RED areas.


This sounds like it could become a Robert Service Poem
 
Western South Dakota ranchers aren't too thrilled with their GOP-TEAts right now..
Dead herds in the Blizzard, no way to remove the carcasses;
now Sen. Thune wants that part of the govt. to reopen..
Just like with Hurricane Sandy versus the natural disasters in RED areas.
I'm not sure why you think we can't remove animal carcass, but we have several tractors and don't need a government goon to operate them.

Dispite the government "shutdown" my Guard unit was out on mission recovering people and cars, opening roads, etc. If need be we will remove animal carcass es as well. Remember that there are 51 governments in the United States and only 1 of them "shut down".
 
Last edited:
The silence says it all.



I don't know, but isn't one of law enforcements biggest argument that they are outgunned on the streets?

which is dishonest on several different fronts

the only people who have weapons that are more "effective" than what cops have access to do so in contravention of the laws

for most of our country's history, citizens owned better weapons than civilian law enforcement. Most POs carried 6 shot revolvers long after 15 shot 9mm pistols were available on the market. Indeed, the Colt 45 is still probably the single best combat pistol available and its far better than the 6 shot snubnose of 4" MODEL 10 revolvers that was LE standard for most of the 20th Century.

I don't really care what cops say about our rights to own guns. Any cop who would deny other citizens the same tools our tax dollars provide that cop should be stripped of his badge-permanently
 
To paraphrase Lazarus Long: in a country where gun rights are restricted, "civil servant" becomes semantically equivalent to "civil master." I cannot imagine a good argument for allowing police officers access to weapons that civilians could not own. I can see restricting some military weapons (I don't think private citizens should be able to own ICBMs with nuclear warheads, or weapon-grade anthrax, for instance). The bottom line for me is that history weighs very heavily against the rationality of weapon control. Historically, a people who give up their weapons and trust a class of citizens to protect them end up taking it up the shaft pretty hard and dry.
 
I don't know, but isn't one of law enforcements biggest argument that they are outgunned on the streets?

First of all thank you for being the first pro gun control person to respond. I appreciate that.

Police departments that still carry the 9mm? Yes I would say they are. Most departments switched to the Glock 10mm years ago. So caliber wise? No not anymore. All squad cars carry a tactical shotgun and some even have AR's. So how they could say they are outgunned nowadays is beyond me. It is usually a ploy to get either more money for a department or to put pressure on government for more gun control. Sometimes it is political appointees (police chiefs) bowing to political pressure. That is actually more often than not the case.

So maybe 20 years ago, yea they were. Can't say that anymore. I am not even going to go into the hardware special tactics units uses.

In the end police who are just civilians authorized by local government to enforce the laws, and should not be above we the people when it comes to those laws.
 
First of all thank you for being the first pro gun control person to respond. I appreciate that.

Police departments that still carry the 9mm? Yes I would say they are. Most departments switched to the Glock 10mm years ago. So caliber wise? No not anymore. All squad cars carry a tactical shotgun and some even have AR's. So how they could say they are outgunned nowadays is beyond me. It is usually a ploy to get either more money for a department or to put pressure on government for more gun control. Sometimes it is political appointees (police chiefs) bowing to political pressure. That is actually more often than not the case.

So maybe 20 years ago, yea they were. Can't say that anymore. I am not even going to go into the hardware special tactics units uses.

In the end police who are just civilians authorized by local government to enforce the laws, and should not be above we the people when it comes to those laws.




I most certainly am not pro gun control! Grrrrr....:2wave:
 
I most certainly am not pro gun control! Grrrrr....:2wave:

Damn that sucks. Then we still have not got even one real answer. Go figure, lol.
 

You are taking my thread way off topic. It has nothing to do with police powers or the rights of the people.

So ask me in a PM or the nether regions.

Now back on topic...

All things being equal many X military, X LEO's and civilians have as much training as do active and retired LEO's. The only real difference is the psychological testing for police and some military MOS'es. Most people with CCW licenses etc have had very extensive background checks as well.

So if people I mentioned had the same psychological testing as police, should they like the police be allowed access to the same weapons? Police are allowed access to teargas and grenade launchers, full auto weapons and even explosive etc grenades.

So if we the people have the same training, background checks etc as police. Why should only the peoples right be infringed?
 
You are taking my thread way off topic. It has nothing to do with police powers or the rights of the people.

So ask me in a PM or the nether regions.

Now back on topic...

All things being equal many X military, X LEO's and civilians have as much training as do active and retired LEO's. The only real difference is the psychological testing for police and some military MOS'es. Most people with CCW licenses etc have had very extensive background checks as well.

So if people I mentioned had the same psychological testing as police, should they like the police be allowed access to the same weapons? Police are allowed access to teargas and grenade launchers, full auto weapons and even explosive etc grenades.

So if we the people have the same training, background checks etc as police. Why should only the peoples right be infringed?

Well, there is a difference in that the training isn't mandatory for us to practice our right. In order to be a police officer you HAVE to have training. If you were talking about making training equivalent to what the police receive for all gun owners, then of course. If not, then I'm not sure how I would feel about ordinary people who may or may not be trained having access to grenade launchers and things of that nature.
 
Well, there is a difference in that the training isn't mandatory for us to practice our right. In order to be a police officer you HAVE to have training. If you were talking about making training equivalent to what the police receive for all gun owners, then of course. If not, then I'm not sure how I would feel about ordinary people who may or may not be trained having access to grenade launchers and things of that nature.

You missed the point. If we have, like me for instance. The same training or better than any police officer. Why does he get to be above the law? So the training they go through must mean very little if people with even more training etc are restricted by laws that police are exempt from just because the local, state, federal authorities say so. It is obviously not based on training or we could have the same hardware. A civilian law enforcement officer is still just a civilian. So why are the civilian police forces not restrained by the same laws? How are they above the people?
 
You missed the point. If we have, like me for instance. The same training or better than any police officer. Why does he get to be above the law? So the training they go through must mean very little if people with even more training etc are restricted by laws that police are exempt from just because the local, state, federal authorities say so. It is obviously not based on training or we could have the same hardware. A civilian law enforcement officer is still just a civilian. So why are the civilian police forces not restrained by the same laws? How are they above the people?

Well it's because not everyone who owns a gun is as well trained as you. That's why I said if there was mandatory training then I would agree. Or are you suggesting that different people have different levels of licensing where they can purchase such weapons IF they have the appropriate training?
 
Well it's because not everyone who owns a gun is as well trained as you. That's why I said if there was mandatory training then I would agree. Or are you suggesting that different people have different levels of licensing where they can purchase such weapons IF they have the appropriate training?

No. My point is why are the police above the law? It's obviously not the training. Otherwise people like myself, Goshen etc could purchase the same arms no mater what state like police, and we can't.
 
No. My point is why are the police above the law? It's obviously not the training. Otherwise people like myself, Goshen etc could purchase the same arms no mater what state like police, and we can't.

Well in that case, they would have to give out a special kind of license for those who were trained, like I said. I'm also quite sure the government doesn't want a populace who is armed as well as they are. ;)
 
Well in that case, they would have to give out a special kind of license for those who were trained, like I said.

They don't and will not. So it is irrelevant to police being above the law. You are still missing my point. The police should not be above the law or the people. The people should have the same rights as any law enforcement officer who is still a civilian and a citizen.

Just to clarify the Military is under the UCMJ, not the Constitution. They follow a different set of laws and rules while in the military and are subject to the UCMJ. Why they are not to be used as police.

I'm also quite sure the government doesn't want a populace who is armed as well as they are. ;)

A government afraid of its citizens is a Democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny!” - Thomas Jefferson

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” - James Madison
 
Last edited:
No. My point is why are the police above the law? It's obviously not the training. Otherwise people like myself, Goshen etc could purchase the same arms no mater what state like police, and we can't.

Because we do not protect our rights and allow government to limit us for no good reason other than government does not want an armed population.

Do you see anywhere in the constitution where any restriction may be placed on firearm ownership by government? Do you know of an express prohibition of such government limitation?

The question is why do we allow government to restrict our right?

And why do we bitch when we allowed infringement of our rights? Best we correct our mistake before it bites us in the rear.
 
I posted a similar question in another thread but here goes for a wider set of views...

All things being equal many X military, X LEO's and civilians have as much training as do active and retired LEO's. The only real difference is the psychological testing for police and some military MOS'es. Most people with CCW licenses etc have had very extensive background checks as well.

So if people I mentioned had the same psychological testing as police, should they like the police be allowed access to the same weapons? Police are allowed access to teargas and grenade launchers, full auto weapons and even explosive etc grenades.

So if we the people have the same training, background checks etc as police. Why should only the peoples right be infringed?

For the record I am OK with the system in place Federally. Locally New York, CA and a few others are in my opinion over the line of "shall not be infringed."

I can understand testing in a case where the person is employed to deploy arms when required since they have no real choice. However civilians always have a choice and the record shows that this choice is well used safely. See Kleck and many others. About 21 such studies.

The question really is exactly what will any mandated training and testing of civilian/public firearm owners gain? Do you have any idea and can you show some tangible validity for any claim?

Why are you OK with gun control? What is your reason for accepting the validity of gun control and how much is to much? What defines to much? What justifies any gun control that you accept?

If you have made a rational decision then there should be no difficulty in answering those questions. If not then best review that opinion/decision.
 
I'd be interested in how many people die in accidents with guns vs. how many are killed maliciously. In the case of mass shooters, lack of training with the weapon is usually not a problem. Quite the opposite in fact. If training was really the main concern, then accidents would be a significant portion of shooting deaths.

With all the caveats that this site might be biased, the claim here is that accidental shootings are way down, just like intentional shootings:

Accidental Gun Deaths and Firearm-Related Homicides at an All-Time Low - Guns.com

so it would appear that gun safety is getting better despite the liberalization of gun laws nationwide in the last couple of decades.

So to recap, if accidental shootings are plummeting and malicious shootings are plummeting, what problem is gun control supposed to solve? the drops coincided with liberalization of gun laws, the increase in crime coincided with more restrictions on guns. Not saying there's anything causal in there, but clearly the laws didn't make an noticeable dent.
 
I'd be interested in how many people die in accidents with guns vs. how many are killed maliciously. In the case of mass shooters, lack of training with the weapon is usually not a problem. Quite the opposite in fact. If training was really the main concern, then accidents would be a significant portion of shooting deaths.

With all the caveats that this site might be biased, the claim here is that accidental shootings are way down, just like intentional shootings:

Accidental shooting would indicate a lack of training so examine the figure. It averages 120 to 160 per year. More people are killed by bees and lightening so lets regulate those. Gun control is not about commons sense it is about hysteria, fear, hate and a false instilled belief our safety will be increased if we disarm the victims of crime.

Every premise and claim for gun control is wrong or false.

I am reminded of the Thomas Jones Diaries which recorded the British parliaments thinking in introducing gun control in 1920.

Parliamentary fear of citizens which might rise up and toss them out.

GUN CONTROL: POLITICAL FEARS TRUMP CRIME CONTROL
Clayton E. Cramer and Joseph Edward Olson.

Fear and Loathing in Whitehall: Bolshevism and the Firearms Act of 1920
By Clayton Cramer

Guns and Violence: The English Experience
To keep and bear arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right.
Joyce Lee Malcolm

IT ISN'T ABOUT DUCK HUNTING: THE BRITISH ORIGINS OF THE RIGHT TO ARMS
David B. Kopel

Gun control has nothing to do with crime.
 
Back
Top Bottom